Posts Tagged ‘professional


rise and shine



Steve Benen: It was easy to imagine Mitt Romney winning the Iowa caucuses. It was harder to imagine Romney winning Iowa and looking weaker at the same time.

And yet, that seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment of the race for the Republican presidential nomination this morning….

….. there’s not much for Romney to boast about here. After five years of near-constant campaigning, Romney managed to get fewer votes in Iowa last night than he did in his first campaign. He also picked up the dubious honor of the weakest win in the history of the caucuses – no victor has ever managed to finish first with less than 25% of the vote until last night.

After spending nearly $4.7 million, most of it towards the very end of the contest, these are not results Romney should be proud of.

Full post here


10:05: PBO departs the White House en route to Joint Base Andrews.

11:35: PBO arrives in Cleveland, Ohio.

12:05: PBO participates in a discussion with a family at a private residence.

1:15: PBO delivers remarks on the economy.

2:35: PBO departs Cleveland, Ohio, en route to Joint Base Andrews.

4:05: PBO Obama arrives at the White House




Hey, who’s the quarterback?



Morning everyone ;-)


hey, a rant!

Okay, so we all know about the decision of Kathleen Sebelius to block the Plan B morning-after pill from being sold over the counter to young teens.

Today the President was asked if he supported the decision, and he said he did.

So, everyone has their own position on this – some back the move, some are outraged by it.

It’s, obviously, a hugely important debate, and once you exclude the voices of the nutjobs whose ultimate fantasy is to control what women do with their bodies, the genuine opinions on both sides are fascinating to hear and read – not least for someone like me who is torn on the issue simply because children are involved. And that’s what, say, 12 or 13-year-old girls are: children. Just because they can have babies at that stage of their lives doesn’t make them adults. When I was a 12 or 13-year-old girl I had significantly less sense than a lump of wood, so, even then, would have laughed at the notion that I was an ‘adult woman’ capable of making big decisions.

Any way, some of the anger about this decision is coming from genuine people who just think it’s seriously wrong.

But then there are commentators like Rebecca Traister at Salon.

I know, I know, it’s ridiculous to give any thought to a post that appears on Salon these days, it’s a long, long time since you could take the site seriously. This, after all, is the home of my most loved comedian, the increasingly hysterical Greenwald creature, who has just become a caricature of a caricature of a caricature of himself, “OMG! I SO TOTALLY HATE OBAMA” the gist of what he writes all day, every day. Cutting edge journalism. And then there’s the embarrassment that is Arianna Huffington-wannabe Joan Walsh, not to mention Gene Lyons who so stylishly compared Melissa Harris-Perry to the KKK.

If they just renamed the place The Anti-Obama Diary they might get a few more hits. Crikey, at least us ‘Obots’ are honest about our affections, but Salon still bills itself as progressively righteous. As the young people say: LOL.

Any way, Rebecca Traister posted a fairly extraordinary article on Salon in response to the Plan B decision, which was a whole lot more about releasing some of her pent-up loathing of the President than it was about the actual issue.

The headline: “Obama’s woman problem – The president shamefully uses his daughters to justify limiting the healthcare options of America’s young women.”


“When will Barack Obama learn how to talk thoughtfully about women, women’s health and women’s rights?”

(Funny, I thought he spoke pretty thoughtfully about women’s rights as early as his first month in office when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. But, never mind. Maybe Rebecca was still recovering from the pain of seeing him inaugurated, so missed the historic occasion? And she probably skipped his appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court too, that level of woman-hating was way too much to take.)

“Obama pooh-poohed the findings of the FDA, which had concluded that Plan B pills posed no medical hazard.”


This is what the President said today (see his full remarks here):

“…. as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore, should be able …. to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect …. It has been deemed safe by the FDA. Nobody is challenging that. When it comes to 12-year-olds or 13-year-olds, the question is can we have confidence that they would potentially use Plan B properly. And her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people.”

So, no, the President didn’t poo-poo the findings of the FDA at all – on the contrary, he said that “nobody is challenging” their decision to deem the product safe. His argument, which was crystal clear – whether you agreed with it or not – was that there were concerns that “12-year-olds or 13-year-olds …. would potentially” use it “improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people”.

Hey, by all means, dispute his argument, but why completely misrepresent what he said?


“But part of what was most disturbing about Obama’s statement was his reliance on language that reveals his paternalistic approach to women and their health. “As the father of two daughters,” Obama told reporters, “I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine.”

So, a father of 13 and 10-year-old girls expressing concern about their welfare is “disturbing”? And suggests his approach to women and their health is “paternalistic”?


Call me weird, I just thought he sounded like a father who cares about the welfare of his young daughters and girls of their age. Is that a bad thing now? Is it way more progressive for a father to say to his 13 and 10-year-old girls, ‘hey, go get pregnant, there’s always Plan B!’.

“…. as an American, I think it is important for my president not to turn to paternalistic claptrap and enfeebling references to the imagined ineptitude and irresponsibility of his daughters …. Obama is just laying down some Olde Fashioned Dad Sense …. he diminishes an issue of gender equality, sexual health and medical access. Recasting this debate as an episode of “Father Knows Best” reaffirms hoary attitudes about young women and sex that had their repressive heyday in the era whence that program sprang.”

Please forgive my language: what a load of complete ****ing bullshit!

I’ve been a fiery feminist all my friggin’ life, but this kind of crap is cringeworthy and just gives ammunition to enemies of women’s rights – it’s pitiful, lamentable, pathetic, whingy shit. Take your pick.

“….the imagined ineptitude and irresponsibility of his daughters….”

His daughters are 13 and 10!!!!! They’re not inept or irresponsible, and he never implied any such thing – they’re not “young women”, they’re CHILDREN!! That is why their father is protective of them, it’s what good, loving fathers do. Father might not always know best, but fathers loving and caring for their young daughters doesn’t make them enemies of women, it makes them decent human beings and great friggin’ Dads.

“When he says that he wants to “apply common sense” to questions of young women’s access to emergency contraception, he is telegraphing his discomfort with the idea of young women’s sexual agency, or more simply, with the idea of them having sex lives at all.”

Oh God. It’s hard to know where to start here, and it’s certainly hard to compete with her psychoanalysis of the President.

Again, Traister chooses to categorize children, as the law regards them, as “young women”.

Help me out here? Traister is saying that the President experiences “discomfort” at the notion of children “having sex”. Children maybe as young as 13 and 10? Does that make him a woman-hating freak? No, it makes him sound a bit like my late Dad, and every normal loving Dad. You know, the ones who become clinically depressed when their daughters first start using lipstick. Does that make them woman-hating monsters? No, it just confirms they are human beings who don’t want their beloved little girls to grow up. And the mere thought of their girls having sex nigh on drives them over the edge. Why? Again, because they’re human!

Which is why we love them, because they actually care. Is it more progressive to be a ‘deadbeat’ Dad who couldn’t give a shit if his 13-year-old daughter is risking becoming pregnant? Most daughters, especially fatherless ones, crave ‘Olde Fashioned Dad Sense’ – that kind of love is worth the price of gold.

So, who is the oddity here: the President or Traister?

“Moreover, Obama’s invocation of his role as a father is an insult to the commitments and priorities of those on the other side of this issue. Are we to believe that those who support the increased availability of emergency contraception do not have daughters? That if they do, they care less about those daughters than Barack Obama does about his? And that if they do not, they cannot possibly know better than a father of daughters what is best for young women?”

Right, at this point Traister has mislaid the plot. Completely.

By citing his love and concern for his daughters, the President was pissing on those who don’t have daughters?


And he insinuated that he cares for his daughters more than any other parent cares for theirs?


Hey, call me cynical, but methinks Traister heard what she wanted to hear today, her misrepresenting of the President’s comments laughably deceitful.

Then she went on to detail the President’s varying positions on late-term abortions over the years, just to beef up her argument that he doesn’t like women much.

You know, I truly envy Rebecca Traister’s glib and easy stance on “reproductive freedom”. She’s so lucky that it’s all so uncomplicated for her. For some of the rest of us it’s way more challenging than that, we actually have to stop and think. Some of us are passionately pro-choice, but are uneasy about late-term abortions. No, that doesn’t mean we hate women, or that we’re Rick Perry-ites, it just means we think about these things, unlike the ideologically pure, for whom every issue is a bumper sticker, rather than something that makes you pause.

Traister, though, excelled when she turned her attention to the President’s view of his wife.

“…. the president “often points out that he is surrounded by strong females at home,” an argument that not only mimics an old saw about how being henpecked by women is equivalent to respecting them, but reflects a dynamic as old as patriarchal power itself.”

Interesting. Traister assumes that the President saying he is surrounded by “strong females at home” automatically means he is “henpecked” …. does this not say a whole lot more about her assumptions than those of the President? Why does she take it that “strong females at home” automatically equals “henpecked”? Heck, maybe it just means….. they’re “strong females”?

Does Traister, you can’t but wonder, have a problem with the First Lady?

She reckons the President’s comments on The View in 2010 about his wife watching the show suggested she “just doesn’t have a head for news delivered by anyone other than Elisabeth Hasselbeck”.

Really? He suggested that? He implied his wife was an airhead?! Truly? And he’s never, ever pointed out that his wife watches this stuff for light relief, just to escape the relentless bile directed towards him on all the other channels, that she is Princeton and Harvard-educated, is way smarter than him, that she is his rock and the first person he seeks advice from – on a personal and political level? And next in line is his longest term advisor, Valerie Jarrett – a mere woman! Yep, the President is a misogynist.

“….  no one seems to have told him …. that the best way to address a question of women’s health and rights is probably not by making it about his role as a father.”

Really? Why is being a father to two young girls so inconsequential when discussing issues like these?

Why is a “role as a father” something not to be mentioned?

When he cites his daughters, in an attempt to explain how he is emotionally involved in an issue, he is exploiting them.

When he doesn’t ‘humanize’ an issue like this, he is an aloof, professorial robot.

Rebecca Traister’s Salon article was a whole heap of steaming crap, of the very worst dishonest and disingenuous kind.

Why? Who knows.

But, by the way, she was a diehard Hillary supporter in 2008 and really has never forgiven Barack Obama for beating her pick.

And that is what this is all about – along with a brand of demented feminism that regards with contempt any role, however benevolent, fathers try to play in their daughters’ lives.

Why did I even draw attention to her pathetic article? Good question!

I just did it to try and shine a little light, again, on the agendas of the President’s most bitter detractors on the so-called left.

The thing is, they sneer at us ‘Obots’, but at least we’re honest about where we stand – these people are deceitful to their core. There’s usually an agenda. As there was with Rebecca Traister’s piece in Salon – all she succeeded in doing was unveiling her bitterness, again.

By all means, while sticking to the facts, attack the President for his position on Plan B …. but attack him for his relationship with his wife and daughters? Ah, that’s when the professional left becomes indistinguishable from Limbaugh and Co.

And their core is just as ugly.


afternoon all, part 2


Andrew Sullivan: The one thing I noticed in my continental run-around this past week is just how mad liberals are at Obama. I remain as baffled by this anger as I am by Republican contempt for the guy. New York magazine has two superb essays that sum up my own feelings on both sides pretty perfectly – by Jon Chait and David Frum. Chait notes how systemic and eternal liberal disenchantment is, and how congenitally useless Democrats are in rallying round a leader, even one who has achieved so much in such a short time.

Many Dems even now think Clinton was more successful in fighting the GOP in his first term than Obama has been. (Memo to the left: universal healthcare was achieved under Obama). But much of this is the usual Democratic limpness and whininess. If George Bush had taken out Osama bin Laden, wiped out al Qaeda’s leadership and gathered a treasure trove of real intelligence by a daring raid, he’d be on Mount Rushmore by now. If he’d done the equivalent on the right of universal healthcare, he’d be the second coming of Reagan. But Obama and liberals? If I hear one more gripe about single payer from someone in their fifties with a ponytail, I’ll scream.

… I remain unrepentant in my support for this president, a man who has accomplished more in the face of a more hostile environment in his first three years than any president since Johnson. I wish more reasonable Dems and a few moderate Republicans will soon have the courage to say so.

Full post here

Thank you eveingeorgia



First lady Michelle Obama delivers opening remarks during a student music program in the State Dining Room

From left: Kris Kristofferson, Lyle Lovett and Darius Rucker



WooOOOooot! Congratulations BWD ;-)



Robert Shrum: …. In a New York Times blog post titled “Decision 2013,” Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen offers strong opinions about the shortcomings of a president “tied up in knots of indecision” ….

…. It is a scathing indictment from someone who plainly feels his counsel and wisdom have been scorned. It is also a stunning repudiation of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s insistence that people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

…. Westen launches an overall indictment of the president’s character – Obama is a president frozen in the ice of his own intellect, too logical, too rational, too disconnected from emotions …. the portrayal here of Obama is far removed from reality.

Ask Osama bin Laden if the president is indecisive. As for delay, health care reform was delayed for a century – and Obama passed it. The economy continues to be troubled, but Obama saved it from disaster … Financial reform, student loan reform, credit card reform, the greatest infrastructure investment in a generation – the list goes on. These are not the markers of indecision and delay. Nor is something else progressive critics thought Obama could never achieve. It was Bill Clinton, who famously felt our pain, who inflicted plenty of it by signing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law. It was Obama who repealed it with a masterful sense of timing and a cool and rational approach to the Pentagon.

That is a hallmark of his presidency. An effective president can’t be just a partisan, appealing solely to the base. But Obama has delivered more progressive change than anyone at anytime since the 1960s. He hasn’t, as Westen writes, “just run out the clock.” He’s moved history ahead….

Full article here



afternoon all


President Barack Obama signs legislation that will provide tax credits to help put veterans back to work during a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. From left are, Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Sen. Patty Murray. D-Wash., first lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Jill Biden, Veterans Affairs Secretary Erik Shinseki and Vice President Joe Biden

Jason Hansman (WH): Today is a historic day for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. When President Obama signs the VOW to Hire Heroes Act into law, an entire generation of new vets will be provided much-needed practical support to transition from combat to careers.  As an Iraq vet I am privileged to lead the membership team at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the country’s first and largest nonpartisan organization committed to our newest veterans. And I speak for all of us when I thank the lawmakers who worked so hard together, putting aside party, to get this bill passed. We also thank the President for his leadership on the issue – for acting so quickly on this legislation and for bringing national attention to the veterans’ unemployment crisis.

More here


Oh dear, Andrew Breitbart’s buddy haz a sad:

Michael Walsh (National Review): ….. the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza makes the same point I made …. You may think Obama is eminently beatable, but unlike Mitt Romney, he has a solid base that is a dead-certain lock to be there for him next year ….

…. Meanwhile, “electable” Romney stays moored at around a quarter of the GOP primary electorate, and as a “frontrunner” has been happily chucked overboard for every not-Romney flavor of the month, including Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Mr. Newt. Head-to-head with Romney next year, Obama will sink him handily.

….. Say-Anything Mitt has no home port and is unlikely to find one beyond the generic anti-Obama vote. Which, alas, will not be big enough or motivated enough to evict Cap’n Barry from the White House bridge …. Indeed, the campaign will begin and end with this photograph:

Sorry, but that’s the truth. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she would have brought a super-energized base of productive taxpaying citizens with her that might have competed favorably with the Obamabots. But she broke their hearts – and damaged herself – by teasing and then not running, leaving the GOP bereft of a candidate who could match BHO II’s charisma.

What can be done at this late date, I have no idea. And neither do the Republicans.



Jonathan Chait (NY Mag): …. Here is my explanation: Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president …. they compare Obama with an imaginary president – either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president.

…. His single largest policy accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, combines two sweeping goals that Democrats have tried and failed to achieve for decades. Likewise, the Recovery Act contained both short-term stimulative measures and increased public investment in infrastructure, green energy, and the like. The Dodd-Frank financial reform, while failing to end the financial industry as we know it, is certainly far from toothless, as measured by the almost fanatical determination of Wall Street and Republicans in Congress to roll it back.

Beneath these headline measures is a second tier of accomplishments carrying considerable historic weight (see article for list)

…. Of the postwar presidents, only Johnson exceeds Obama’s domestic record, and Johnson’s successes must be measured against a crushing defeat in Vietnam. Obama, by contrast, has enjoyed a string of foreign-policy successes ….

So, if Obama is the most successful liberal president since Roosevelt, that would make him a pretty great president, right?

Full article here

Thanks gobrooklyn and saintroscoe


Thank you proudmemberofglobalzero – you see more videos like this at Daniel Tilson’s YouTube channel


Ooooooooooh, so close!




Gavin Polone: One of the many things that bug me about the industry in which I work is the large population of phonies who claim to be liberal, caring, green and unaffected by their wealth and fame but in reality are just as self-centered and addicted to their huge, over-air-conditioned living spaces and private planes as those at whom they point their fingers. And none is more phony and finger-pointing than Michael Moore.

Moore seems to be everywhere of late, talking about the “occupy” movement and fashioning himself its spokesmodel …. this protest would be better served if those speaking on its behalf were of cleaner hands and less hypocritical than Moore, who has suckled mightily at the teat of “those who do well.”

In 2005, the Weinstein Co. set up financing of about $500 million to fund production and distribution. The investment vehicle was created and syndicated by a little firm called Goldman Sachs. One of the films that was produced by TWC using funds from that investment was Moore’s documentary Sicko….

By 2010, TWC had burned through the capital raised in the Goldman Sachs deal. Investors were forced to restructure their arrangement, meaning some suffered a devaluation of their investment … One of those who did quite well using the TWC funds was Moore.

…. If Moore really wants to be seen as someone outside the circle of those he is protesting, it would be great if he would disclose how much he has made off his TWC-backed movies and why he was willing to associate himself with financing set up by Goldman Sachs. Further, journalists should start showing more backbone in testing the veracity of statements made by those who use the media to disseminate a holier-than-though message…..

Full article here

Thank you Dorothy


ABC (2009): Michael Moore used some non-union crewmembers when union workers were available in the production of his latest film “Capitalism: A Love Story,” a documentary that argues the capitalist system allows for greedy corporations to exploit working-class people.

…. In a statement issued to, Moore’s agent Ari Emanuel :shock: said the filmmaker wished the union included more documentary crew people – but he did not deny that IATSE members were snubbed in favor of non-union employees.

…. As a result of Moore’s decision not to use IATSE workers, at least one other national union, the American Federation of Teachers has refused free tickets offered to them from Moore.

…. An internal AFT memo, obtained by, added that the non-union workers hired for the film did not receive health insurance.

Full article here


Grover Norquist’s best buddy Jane Hamsher is asking people to donate money to buy winter gear for the OWS protestors –

She’s promising that 100% of the money will go to the protestors.

That’s excellent.

But she’s using the very same OWS donation appeal to look for funds for herself:

Oh boy.

Thanks Linda.


Oh, let’s not forget OWS’s other self-appointed spokesman – you know, the guy who’s associated with Charles Koch’s Cato Institute:


The OWS movement is magnificent, it just can’t allow itself be hijacked by these self-promoting frauds.


Statement from the President on Senate Republicans Blocking the Infrastructure Bill:

For the third time in recent weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a jobs bill that independent economists said would boost our economy and put Americans back to work. At a time when more than a million construction workers are looking for a job, they voted “no” to putting them back to work doing the work America needs done – rebuilding our roads, bridges, airports and transit systems. That makes no sense.

It makes no sense when you consider that this bill was made up of the same kinds of common-sense proposals that many of these Senators have fought for in the past. It was fully paid for. And even though it was supported by more than 70 percent of the American people – Republicans, Democrats, and independents – 100 percent of Senate Republicans said no. It’s more clear than ever that Republicans in Washington are out of touch with Americans from all ends of the political spectrum.

The American people deserve to know why their Republican representatives in Washington refuse to put some of the workers hit hardest by the economic downturn back on the job rebuilding America. They deserve an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what’s necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to put country ahead of party and listen to the people they were elected to serve. It’s time for them to do their job and focus on Americans’ jobs. And until they do, I will continue to do everything in my power to move this country forward.


President Barack Obama participates in the G20 Family Photo, White House Photo, Pete Souza, 11/3/11


Beyond funny – from ChristiMtl:

Quick note here

I want to thank you guys for the lovely birthday wishes for my mom….she loved it!

I was on the phone with her and she read each ones. I translated for her the words she didn’t understand but for the most part, she could read it herself, her english is even better than I thought.

She LOVED the picture of President Obama with the birthday cake….

It was funny because in between the birthday wishes, there was a conversation with Tally, Chips and a few other TOD’ers.

So my mom said…”Oh I see a picture of a soccer player without his shirt on”

”And now it’s a picture of a shower, what does it mean?”

I could read sentences like ”My DNA wants to breed with Gerry Butler”

lol I didn’t know how to tell her that some TOD’ers needed a cold shower this morning.

I was cracking up.

So it was fun and lovely……

You guys are the best.


Thanks Riblets ;-)


Emilia (Osborneink): Chris Matthews has written a book. So has Michael Moore. So have Bill Maher, Glenn Greenwald, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Joan Walsh.

Yes, folks, the pimping season has arrived, just in time for the Christmas sales.

This is why you see Michael Moore appropriating Occupy Wall Street, even though pimping his latest Forrest Ga-hu-hu-hump fantasy is pure capitalism. That’s why Joan Walsh appears twice daily on MSNBC opinion programs for no fee at all and out of the goodness of her heart. This is why Greenwald is here, there and everywhere, unfortunately. Maher plugs his book weekly on his show. Self-publicizing is too much for vanden Heuvel’s impeccable Fifth Avenue breeding. She sticks to Twitter.

Full post here

Thanks Hopefruit



welcome to the weekend


NY Times editorial: President Obama’s announcement on Friday that the last American soldier will leave Iraq by year’s end signals a welcome end to a war that was started under false pretenses and went on far too long – killing more than 4,400 Americans and many more thousands of Iraqis and costing $1 trillion over nearly nine years.

When Mr. Obama took office, there were about 142,000 Americans fighting in Iraq. The president deserves credit for fulfilling his campaign promise to bring the conflict to a close.

…. The announcement triggered some foolish criticism from neo-conservatives – who remain shamefully unapologetic for their role in unleashing this war – accused Mr. Obama of abandoning Iraq now. Mitt Romney said Mr. Obama “unnecessarily put at risk” hard-won victories. Like most of what Mr. Romney says about national security, that was absurd. Would he have Washington ignore the desires of Iraq’s democratic government and stay in Iraq forever?

Oil-producing Iraq is a major regional actor. The United States, which has an embassy with thousands of employees in Baghdad, must remain actively engaged diplomatically, through development and economic cooperation. But Iraq will be in the hands of Iraqis, as it should be.

Full editorial here


It was completely brilliant to see BWD post at The Only Adult In The Room yesterday, on what was a very special day. Looking forward, so much, to see her coming back in the months ahead – meanwhile, make sure you follow her on Twitter


You saw this:

Now there’s this:


Good to see Firebagger fraud Uygur being challenged when trying to use OWS for his own promotion. It’ll be interesting to see how much he’ll profit personally from his new PAC. As much as Hamsher and Greenwald did from theirs?


More on Uygur here and at Wikipedia




We’ve nearly reached our target….

Thank you everyone ;-)

If you can help: link


‘believe it or not, the left is still behind obama’

Adam Sorensen: …. one can understand why California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom might have thought his recent venting session at a gathering of fellow Democrats in Half Moon Bay would be met with approving clucks or, at very least, silent nods. Not so much.

“Among the Newsom jabs: Obama should have pushed his agenda harder when the Democrats still controlled both houses of Congress,” recounted the San Francisco Chronicle, “a remark that drew a handful of boos from the audience.” … Newsom ran smack into what seems to be a common misconception about the Obama presidency: Though many of the left’s opinion makers have turned away from Obama, broader liberal flight is a phenomenon that simply doesn’t exist.

Real Clear Politics’ latest data crunching pegs the President’s average approval among Democrats at a robust 76.8%. (For comparison, in October of 1995, soon-to-be-re-elected Bill Clinton’s Democratic support was a near-identical 77%, according to Gallup.) And what of the real left? The ones whose disappointment has been given voice by people like Drew Westen to Paul Krugman? It turns out self-identified liberals’ support for Obama isn’t far behind at 72% in Gallup’s latest tracking data. (The same group gave Clinton 65% approval in 1995)….

…. Gavin Newsom, who rumor has it might run for Congress next year when Rep. Lynn Woolsey is likely to retire, should know that in the liberal bastion of San Francisco, there’s little political upside in breaking with Obama.

Full article here

The Firebaggers just make the most noise ;-)


‘david sirota and the white leftist version of racism’

Deaniac (The People’s View): It’s kind of funny when you think about it, but silver-pen David Sirota thinks he’s got a better grip on race than the founding director of the Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South at Tulane University, Melissa Harris-Perry.

After Professor Harris-Perry’s piece in The Nation chiding white Leftist electoral racism of double standards against a black president received acclaim and attention, Sirota, a renowned fantasy-land pretend-Leftist, decided that he was going to take on Professor Harris Perry, by being too cute by half.

Sirota’s argument, on the surface, is that the elite white Leftist class – who overlap with the Professional Left about 90% – is really mad at the president not out of some double standard they set for a black president, but on the basis of policy. Or as David calls it, policy betrayals. Clever. Because we have never seen the attempt to hide denial of race-privilege behind a thin veil of policy criticism ever before, right?

…. the first African American president is not treated with the same level of respect by the white Leftist elite, nor do his accomplishments enjoy among them the same praise had those same accomplishments come from a white president. And this part of the thesis, unfortunately, is not at all difficult to prove, either: See post for detailed examples

… The racist undertone is also present in the latent expectation that once you have elected a black president, he needs to be a magician and magically begin a utopia according to your likings …. The truth of liberal white elitism and racism is based on true observations, and is not much better than that from the Republicans: that the black guy, who’s working day and night to keep the car from slipping back into the ditch and move forward is not pushing it hard enough or the right way, and so on and so forth.

Full post here


bob & chez

Extreme Liberal has a terrific post (which I linked yesterday – here) with a transcript from a recent podcast from The Bob and Chez Show (featuring Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza).

In case you you don’t listen to podcasts, the video above has an extract from the show (recorded after OFA New Mexico State Director Ray Sandoval sent an email to supporters attacking Firebaggers and Paul Krugman).

It’s the best analysis of the Firebaggers I’ve heard. Be good to yourself, subscribe to The Bob and Chez Show on iTunes. ;-)


‘stop whining’

Extreme Liberal: If you haven’t gone to iTunes and subscribed to the Bubble Genius Bob and Chez Show podcast, you are missing out on the best political analysis around and a lot of great laughs. You can find them at their respective blogs, Bob Cesca’s Aweseome Blog! Go! and Deus Ex Malcontent where they consistently tell it like it is.

A few weeks ago, they did a show called “Stop Whining”, which I highly recommend you listen to, after you subscribe to them on iTunes. But in case you prefer reading or are at work and can’t really listen, I took the time to transcribe a large portion of that show for your reading pleasure. I think it exposes the true motivations and agenda of those who have become known as the “Professional Left” or the name I prefer, “Firebaggers”……

See post and transcript here


‘the liberal disaffection myth’

Domenico Montanaro (MSNBC): President Obama’s base has abandoned him – so goes the conventional Beltway wisdom.

The problem with this accepted narrative: There’s no data to back this up, according to the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll.

The survey included these numbers:

– By an 81%-14% margin, Democrats approved of his job performance, essentially unchanged from his 82%-14% score in July.

– Among liberals, it was 74%-21% – exactly the same numbers from July.

– 92% of black respondents said they approved of Obama’s job with 5% disapproving. That’s actually up from July, when his approval with the group stood at 83%-13%.

– And among Hispanics, his approval stands at 57%-38%, up from his 45%-48% score in July…..


Thanks Dorothy ;-)


you can never see this enough….




Aljazeera: …… on the floor of the intelligence chief’s office (in Libya) lay an envelope addressed to Gaddafi’s son Saif Al-Islam. Inside, I found what appears to be a summary of a conversation between US congressman Denis Kucinich, who publicly opposed US policy on Libya, and an intermediary for the Libyan leader’s son.

It details a request by the congressman for information he needed to lobby American lawmakers to suspend their support for the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) and to put an end to NATO airstrikes. According to the document, Kucinich wanted evidence of corruption within the NTC and, like his fellow countryman Welch, any possible links within rebel ranks to al-Qaeda.

The document also lists specific information needed to defend Saif Al-Islam, who is currently on the International Criminal Court’s most wanted list…..

More here

Thank you QuietObserver



TPM (March 2011): A number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers are concerned about the White House’s air assault on Libya, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich raised the rhetoric to 11 on Monday, suggesting President Obama should be impeached.

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said,” Kucinich said…. Obama’s decision “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense”.



From March 2011:

CNN: Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich is transforming his critique of President Obama’s actions in Libya into a fundraising plea, asking supporters to decide whether they like President Obama or the Constitution more.

After calling the president’s decision to act in Libya an “impeachable offense,” Kucinich Monday posted a letter on his website asking supporters for help in “putting together a broad fundraising structure to make sure that I’ll have the resources to continue to be a voice in the Unites States Congress.”

….Stating that he “never failed to stand up” when advocating for the “need to more our economy forward” or “internationally standing up for peace,” Kucinich asked potential donors to shore up his re-election efforts for 2012.

…. Ohio is set to undergo redistricting following the results of the most recent U.S. Census, a development that may make Kucinich’s road to re-election more difficult….

Full article here


The Atlantic: ….  Al Jazeera’s Jamal Elshayyal is reporting this afternoon that the Ohio congressman may have translated his opposition into outright collaboration with the Qaddafi regime.

Elshayyal claims he’s uncovered a document at Libya’s intelligence headquarters in Tripoli ….. The file explains that the congressman (who is not named in the document reproduced on Al Jazeera’s site, raising questions about how Elshayyal pinpointed Kucinich) is seeking information from the Libyan government to file a lawsuit against NATO, the U.N., and the U.S., defend Saif al-Islam at the International Criminal Court, reform the image of the regime, and facilitate negotiations to end the conflict.

….. Kucinich already landed in hot water earlier this year for traveling to Syria to meet with President Bashar al-Assad …. In a statement on Friday that sounded very similar to Kucinich’s justification for visiting Assad, the representative explained, “In my efforts to end the war, I have been contacted by many parties – including members of the Qaddafi regime and some with ties to the rebels….”

Update: Rep. Kucinich’s office has sent The Atlantic Wire a statement in which the congressman flatly denies Al Jazeera’s report, claiming that the document in question is simply a summary of Kucinich’s public positions on the Libyan campaign by a Libyan bureaucrat who never consulted with Kucinich himself….

More here


‘it’s not power they want but a vessel for their resentments’

Michael Tomasky has a good article on The Daily Beast about Ron Paul and the type of people who support him. A couple of lines stood out:

Some people take great comfort in backing candidates they know will never win – they prefer, on some deep level, to fall short and be angry about it. It encases their loserdom in a carapace of purity and righteousness. I had a friend, a hard-core leftist …. who liked to say: “Vote for the loser, he’ll never let you down.” ….

…. the paradox of Ron Paul is that if he gained any actual power, most of his base would desert him, because it’s not power they want but a vessel for their resentments.


Never mind Ron Paul supporters, what a truly perfect description for the ‘pure’ left! (Although, of course, the two groups have a habit of overlapping).


a long and desolate night of bitterness…..

Toon from AngryBlackLady

Well, this snippet of news today made my heart sing….

Formerly Popular Sites that Are Dying:

“One of the oldest online magazines,, has sunk like a rock lately, losing about one million regular visitors over the past year, per, a 37 percent decline.”

37 percent! And Salon chuckles at the drop in the President’s approval ratings!

Poor Joan ‘I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE’ Walsh. There she was on Twitter tonight, frantically dismissing the story because she said it came from Fox. Except the stats quoted weren’t from Fox, they were from, as some truly heartless Twitterers pointed out.

Oh dear, looks like Salon’s Greenwald-fuelled firebaggery isn’t paying off.

Oh, speaking of Greenwald.

There was a time I avoided reading him, in a life’s-way-too-short kind of way, the guy’s interminable hysteria and bitterness zzzzz-inducing. Truly, the king of vitriol had become a parody of himself. There were times – and forgive me for this – that I actually felt sorry for him. He made Dan Choi seem like a well-balanced, chilled-out kind of dude.

Now, though, I read him occasionally because the entertainment levels are just fantastic!

Yes, it usually takes him about 10,000 words to make a single point, when really five would do: “I hate Obama, like totally”. But there are so many laugh-out-loud moments in his tirades it’s like you’re reading The Onion.

Today he was attacking Michael Tomasky for his “this may be a truly great foreign-policy president in the making” post on the Daily Beast (here), while also sneering at Ezra Klein and Steve Benen for pieces they had written recently that acknowledged the President’s achievements and the depth of opposition and obstruction he faces.

Greenwald’s narcissism, as we know, won’t tolerate any one disagreeing with his point of view, and the fella pretty much needs to be sedated when supposed fellow ‘progressives’ (*) refuse to join him in spitting bile all over the President. So, we can expect more of these ‘Oh My God! Tomasky, Klein and Benen are, like, totally brainwashed Obot sheeple, besotted with the exotic Dear Leader’ tantrums. Lots more.

(* Greenwald is not and has never been a ‘progressive’ – see his views on immigration below. He’s a part-time Libertarian, but generally this privileged white boy sits on the sidelines and sneers at the efforts of any elected representative who tries to change things for the better, even if, thanks to the political system, that change can only be incremental.)

The highlight of today’s screeching session?

“Gadaffi certainly wasn’t worse than Saddam.”

No, seriously, that’s what he said (I won’t link his excrement, just trust me). So, Gadaffi tortured and murdered marginally fewer folk than Saddam, so he’s a fluffy harmless Obama-persecuted bunny?

Hey Glenn, tell that to this Libyan kid, I’m sure it’ll comfort him enormously:

(Sky News, August 25)

(What? It’s tacky to use a child in an argument? Okay, but tell that to Glenn ‘Obama slaughters babies’ Greenwald).

We can only hope a brighter day will come for that boy, and all Libyans. If it does, as Tomasky (no friend of the President) argued, it will be partly because of the President’s response to the uprising in the country.

But, Greenwald is still insisting that President Obama’s foreign policy is as morally depraved as Dick Cheney’s. Ah, but remember when Cheney’s name was celebrated around that part of the world? No? Okay.

But why, exactly, has Greenwald upped his vitriol?

It could be that he sees no credible GOP candidate emerging who could beat the President next year. Let’s face it, his beloved Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Bernie Sanders.

Or maybe it’s the President’s “humane immigration policy” (Steve Benen) that has incensed him.

After all, this is the King of the Progressives who wrote:

“….illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions … The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.

“There already is a “closed sign on the border” when it comes to illegal immigration. It’s called the law. The problem is that the “closed sign” isn’t being enforced because the Federal Government, which has its interfering, power-hungry hands in virtually everything else, has abdicated its duty in one of the very few areas where it was actually meant to be: border security.”

No, honest, that wasn’t Rush Limbaugh, it was Greenwald (see here)

Note the aggression and venom in the language. No one, I think, would argue that illegal immigration isn’t an issue that has to be dealt with – hopefully with a revived DREAM Act – but a “parade of evils”? What? People, often desperate for a new and better life for their families, who enter America illegally, are a “parade of evils”?

How progressive!

But look, maybe it’s Salon’s sinking traffic and the firebaggers’ funding going through the floor (here and here) (remember, he once profited handsomely from his collaboration with Jane ‘Grover Norquist’s best buddy’ Hamsher), that has driven him over the edge?

Who knows?


“One of the oldest online magazines,, has sunk like a rock lately, losing about one million regular visitors over the past year, per, a 37 percent decline.”

…. won’t lighten Glenn’s mood. Seems like fewer and fewer folk care to read his bile.







Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.









Blog Stats

  • 33,282,854 hits
November 2015
« Oct